The Possible Murder of Georgina Byrne

[David Orsam]

As the "Cass" case mere months before showed, being an unaccompanied female even in broad daylight in a respectable area, was enough for a policeman to arrest her for prostitution!

It wasn’t actually. PC Endacott had to inform the custody sergeant and the magistrate that he had seen her pestering men.

[David Orsam]

Two things I am not sure of.Did the man mention husband or was he misinterpreted.Did he in fact go to find a doctor?

Hooray! At last, after 148 posts, someone questions whether PC Duffin's account was true!!! Harry, I hoped it would be you and you have not let me down.

[David Orsam]

Duffin was aware that Byrne was still alive,that she appeared to need medical help.His duty and attention was to the woman.He put this duty first.No fault there.There was no signs of violence,and the two persons with her appeared to be helping,so no need for Duffin to be suspicious.

You may not be aware of this Harry but no-one is criticizing PC Duffin.

[David Orsam]

But these "two" were merely part of an, apperantly, large crowd.

So what? Duffin still couldn't possibly have known if the woman had been murdered or simply fallen over and bumped her head until he investigated the situation. Just as Mizen couldn't have known if the woman in Bucks Row had collapsed with a diseased heart or was drunk etc.

Because the circumstances are so vastly different, for me at least, I see no real connection.

Do you not agree that at least one of the men, possibly both, left the crime scene, with one of them telling a direct lie in order to provide an excuse to leave and the officer apparently taking no details?

If so, I suggest there is a blatantly obvious similarity. If not, please explain why those things did not happen.

[David Orsam]

The one person allowed to leave in search of help had voluntarily identified himself, albeit falsely.

I don't know why you say "allowed to leave". Duffin had no power to stop anyone leaving other than carrying out an arrest.

And I do like the euphemism that the man "voluntarily identified himself, albeit falsely". Another way of saying this is that he lied!

Or we could say that Charles Cross "voluntarily mentioned that there was another officer in Bucks Row, albeit falsely".

[David Orsam]

>>The point that David was making on discovering and posting this incident was that Mizen has been criticised for allowing CL and Paul to go on their way without taking their details. <<

Of course, the circumstances are very different between the two incidents.

Mizen was engaged in a duty (knocking up) and was requested to, not only, leave his beat, but cease his lawful duty and enter another police division's jurisdiction by two, arguable suspicious characters.

In this case, Duffin came upon an incident that was on his beat, in a crowded street.

The issue being discussed is whether an officer was required, under the terms of the police code, to take particulars of individuals in circumstances of a lady lying in the street, so the issues of knocking up and being on a different beat are irrelevant.

If you think that I was saying the two incidents were identical you have obviously misunderstood me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

In cases of strict liability knowledge, or fault, is irrelevant: http://www.lawmentor.co.uk/resources...ict-liability/

On the face of it, the police code of the period imposed strict liabilty. In other words an officer was required to take down particulars in respect of accidents or a criminal case. This requirement isn't qualified, i.e there is no mention of a that the officer had to be reasonably aware that the incident was an accident or criminal case.

Now, of course, it could be that the Code wasn't meant to be read litterally. However, in that case we would need to read additional words into the regulations, which calls for speculation.

David argues that it would be an accident or a criminal case simply because a witness said it was such. But why should the witness be the final arbitrator? And if that was the case what was the point of an inquest? And what if the witness was lying.

Conversely, I simply argue that the 0fficer would have been required to exercise reasonable judgement, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

Of course, in these circumstances PC Mizen wasn't necessarily at fault, even though he'd been informed a woman was lying, possibly dead, so it's possible a crime or accident could have taken place. And a prudent officer may have taken particulars in such a case.

But ultimately it's all down to perception: did PC Mizen believe his superiors would take a hard line, harshly imposing the Code according to its literal meaning, given that a brutal murder had taken place, inevitably attracting a lot of press interest.

Hi John,

Thanks for the explaination.

[curious]

I just don't buy the dancing club explanation. An earlier post quotes contemporary evidence that the boots in the parcel were "new", which suggests they were a purchase for either Georgina or her sister.

You said you liked dancing, Curious-- ever go dancing in new shoes fresh from the manufacturer?

Let's see what facts we know about Mrs. Bryne:
-- She's the widow of a non-commissioned army officer, with a young son.
-- The boy is with her parents, presumably while she was working.
-- Work for women in Victorian times was limited, according to some research I did last night, so she might have been in a factory or a shop as a saleslady. Either would fit with the respectable options for middle-class women.
-- Her employer confirmed she had left work for the day.
-- Her father didn't know why she was traveling to London, but assumed it was to visit her sister.
-- She had some money, the parcel of shoes, and a umbrella with her when she collapsed on the street.
-- We don't know why she was walking at night, possibly alone, without other luggage, and with money to hire a cab or carriage.
-- We don't know who the well-dressed man was, or if he was really her "husband", but it seems to be a lie, given that her family knew nothing of him.
-- Could the man have been a thief, con-man, or pickpocket? Certainly, and the papers suggested as much, since one story said something along the lines that she might have been robbed of everything if the police hadn't come along when they did.

Conclusion: We don't know everything, but it could have been attempted robbery.

You're right, it could have been an attempted robbery. We just don't know what happened.

Her employment was assisting in the management of a fruiterer's business in Guildhall Street, according to a Sept. 11 article in The Hull Daily Mail.

I wasn't married to the idea of dancing as I don't know of dancing clubs or even a private party she may have been attending. The shoes appearing new doesn't bother me as the soles would not have been scuffed if they had been worn only indoors once or twice, and therefore the shoes could still appear new after being worn once or twice.

HOWEVER, lugging the shoes around at 11 p.m. on a Saturday night bugs me greatly. I was mentally covering everything I could come up with as a possible explanation for having an extra pair of shoes. Going through everything I could think of for which we carry an extra pair of shoes: hiking, obviously not; driving, not applicable. Dancing was the only thing I could come up with.

Were patent leather shoes an evening or day shoe in 1888? Mentally exploring . .

SO, I went back to re-read everything.

Post No. 18 by Jerry D: an article from The Post for Monday, Sept. 10:

she had been carrying: "a reticule, parasol with bow handle, mounted in silver, and a brush and comb in a white calico bag . . . A paper parcel containing a pair of boots and other articles."

So, she was also still carrying a parasol. Weren't they used only in the daytime and as a sunshade? Interesting that her brush and comb were in a white calico bag and not her reticule.

However, the most enlightening part was that the paper parcel contained articles other than the boots.

It's possible that instead of a valise or bag, she had her overnight things in that paper parcel and had not been anywhere to drop them off as she came from Canterbury to where ever her final destination for the night was going to be.

So, I give up on the dancing . . .

And John G, in answer to your question: Yes, that seems a fair point. And, as I noted earlier, would such strict rules apply to the lower middle classes?

I have no idea.

curious

[John G]

Well, if her father had been an officer and she married a non-com, wouldn't she have married down?

And that might indicate a somewhat rebellious nature, right? A woman who did not live strictly by the rules?

curious

Yes, that seems a fair point. And, as I noted earlier, would such strict rules apply to the lower middle classes?

[John G]

Hi John,

I'm no expert on this and I haven't read the Police Code (maybe I should) but surely the point is that whether Mizen had been told that Nichols was dead or drunk he had no way of knowing at the time that a crime, or indeed an accident, had occurred. For all he knew at the time Nichols could have just collapsed (like Mrs Byrne.)

Hi Herlock,

In cases of strict liability knowledge, or fault, is irrelevant: http://www.lawmentor.co.uk/resources...ict-liability/

On the face of it, the police code of the period imposed strict liabilty. In other words an officer was required to take down particulars in respect of accidents or a criminal case. This requirement isn't qualified, i.e there is no mention of a that the officer had to be reasonably aware that the incident was an accident or criminal case.

Now, of course, it could be that the Code wasn't meant to be read litterally. However, in that case we would need to read additional words into the regulations, which calls for speculation.

David argues that it would be an accident or a criminal case simply because a witness said it was such. But why should the witness be the final arbitrator? And if that was the case what was the point of an inquest? And what if the witness was lying.

Conversely, I simply argue that the 0fficer would have been required to exercise reasonable judgement, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

Of course, in these circumstances PC Mizen wasn't necessarily at fault, even though he'd been informed a woman was lying, possibly dead, so it's possible a crime or accident could have taken place. And a prudent officer may have taken particulars in such a case.

But ultimately it's all down to perception: did PC Mizen believe his superiors would take a hard line, harshly imposing the Code according to its literal meaning, given that a brutal murder had taken place, inevitably attracting a lot of press interest.

[drstrange169]

>>I think that "respectable" women of all classes kept themselves out of situations that might harm their reputations ... <<

As the "Cass" case mere months before showed, being an unaccompanied female even in broad daylight in a respectable area, was enough for a policeman to arrest her for prostitution!

[drstrange169]

>>... for Mizen. The body lying on the ground wasn't reported to him as a criminal case or accident so he couldn't possibly have known it would turn out to be a murder.<<

Mizen, didn't even know whether there was a body or not, he took the word of two passing strangers on faith, whereas Duffin was confronted with a prone woman and a crowd of people, one of whom identified himself and went to allegedly seek help, leaving his "wife" in the care of the officer.

[drstrange169]

>>Here we have an officer who literally finds two men standing over the body of a woman lying on the pavement in the dark. <<

But these "two" were merely part of an, apperantly, large crowd.

>>At least one of the men, possibly both, leave the crime scene, with one of the men telling a direct lie in order to provide an excuse to leave. The officer, apparently, takes no details of the men.

All seems eerily familiar to me.<<

Because the circumstances are so vastly different, for me at least, I see no real connection.

[harry]

Duffin was aware that Byrne was still alive,that she appeared to need medical help.His duty and attention was to the woman.He put this duty first.No fault there.There was no signs of violence,and the two persons with her appeared to be helping,so no need for Duffin to be suspicious.
Duffin appears to have submitted a full report of his involvement that same evening.
Two things I am not sure of.Did the man mention husband or was he misinterpreted.Did he in fact go to find a doctor?
Who summond the transport to take Byrne to Hospital?
There were ,on average,hundreds of deaths each week in London.I'm sure the police attended on many occasions,and many at first appeared strange.

[drstrange169]

>>The point that David was making on discovering and posting this incident was that Mizen has been criticised for allowing CL and Paul to go on their way without taking their details. <<

Of course, the circumstances are very different between the two incidents.

Mizen was engaged in a duty (knocking up) and was requested to, not only, leave his beat, but cease his lawful duty and enter another police division's jurisdiction by two, arguable suspicious characters.

In this case, Duffin came upon an incident that was on his beat, in a crowded street. The one person allowed to leave in search of help had voluntarily identified himself, albeit falsely.